Explicit. Explicit. Explicit. Same/Different. Same/Different. Same/Different. Explicit with Distracters. Explicit with distracters. Explicit with Distracters. Same/Different. Same/Different. Same/Different. Implicit. Implicit. Implicit. 45-degrees? Yes/No. 45-degrees? Yes/No.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Explicit with Distracters
Explicit with distracters
Explicit with Distracters
Implicit with distracters
Implicit with Distracters
Bilateral and Unilateral Orientation Dynamics
Poster Session F
Board # 7
Abstract # 689
Nestor Matthews & Kristin M. Reardon
Department of Psychology, Denison University, Granville OH 43023 USA
Background and Purpose
The finding that d’ increased with stimulus duration in the periphery confirms and extends previous work in the fovea1,2. Similarly the finding that there is no cost associated with inter-hemispheric communication (i.e., there was no unilateral superiority effect) on our orientation task is consistent with previous results from a distal misalignment task6. It may be that an inter-hemispheric cost arises only on tasks that require low-level grouping6,7. Distracters in the present study impaired performance only selectively. Specifically, the distracter impairment could be “turned off” by either holding the stimulation constant while changing task from explicit to implicit, or by making the distracters differ from the targets in spatial frequency and color. These findings suggest a difference between the mechanisms underlying implicit and explicit orientation comparisons, and also argue against a number-of-item account of the distracter impairment.
Intriguingly, the ‘bilateral superiority effect’ in the present explicit / distracter conditions could reflect independent resources in left and right hemispheres8.
Previous data (shown below) indicate that orientation sensitivity improves across the tens of milliseconds after masked stimuli are presented foveally1,2.
The purpose of the present study was to extend the previous work on foveal orientation dynamics to the periphery. Earlier studies on peripheral stimulation suggested that more neural processing time may be needed for comparisons across the corpus callosum than for comparisons restricted to either lateral hemi-field3,4. Here, we probed the role of the corpus callosum by comparing bilateral and unilateral orientation sensitivity. Additionally, we manipulated whether the orientational reference was implicit or explicit. (Activity across the corpus callosum was relevant only in the explicit / bilateral condition.) Previous research has suggested that implicit and explicit references generate comparable discrimination thresholds on other low-level tasks (i.e., judging the separation between lines) under foveal stimulation5.
1. Strong, Kurosawa & Matthews (2006). JOV. PMID: 16881797
2. Matthews, Rojewski & Cox (2005). JOV. PMID: 15929646
3. Wilson, Blake & Lee (2001). Nature. PMID: 11528478
4. Ringo, Doty, Detemer & Simard (1994). Cereb Cortex. PMID: 7950307
5. Morgan, Watamaniuk & McKee (2000). Vision Res. PMID: 10927119
6. Pillow & Rubin (2002). Neuron. PMID: 11879656
7. Butcher & Cavanagh (2004). VSS Abstracts, D34, p. 105.
8. Alvarez & Cavanagh (2005). Psychol Sci. PMID: 16102067